Showing posts with label Mumbai. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mumbai. Show all posts

Saturday, August 24, 2013

The Delhi gangrape and after: what ails us?




This is a piece I had written after the Delhi gangrape last December. I am reposting it now because the same problems still exist. Until we start to address them, rape after rape will happen, in one city or another, time and again. 
 

It is tragic that it took an episode as horrific as the rape of a young woman in a Delhi bus on December 19 to shake India out of its complacency over such crimes. 
This month itself, going only by cases that made the national news, there were three incidents on just one day, December 5. In Amritsar, an Akali MLA and his accomplices shot dead a policeman because he objected to their harassing his daughter. In Bangalore, a woman playwright was groped, harassed and slapped because she demanded punishment against a biker who ran into her car from behind. In Bombay, a boy of 19 was stabbed to death by a group of younger boys because he tried to stop them from harassing a girl.
 The terrifying lack of justice has been staring us in the face for years, but most people didn’t seem to see it until now. People were shortsighted; they saw proximate causes of problems, and clamored for easy fixes. So, for example, when Manu Sharma shot dead Jessica Lal, they marched to ask for his arrest. When terror attacks started to hit our cities, they called for hanging the occasional terrorist who was caught and convicted. When corruption began to pinch, they screamed for a Lokpal Bill. Now, when rape has crossed some invisible and inexplicable threshold of tolerance, they are calling for hanging the rapists. It is not as if rapes haven’t been happening all this while.

Stop the kneejerk

The kneejerk reaction is no use. 
Imagine a body that has chicken pox rashes breaking out all over. Every time one pox rash breaks out, some folks say put ointment on it, some others say put a pin through it, somebody else says something else. It’s all pointless, since the disease is internal, and the whole body is sick. 
India’s situation appears to be like that. The whole country is sick, and rashes are breaking out all over. Applying ointment or putting a pin through the rash is no solution. Entire systems have become rotten to the core, and need to be fixed from the inside out. 
From the Jessica Lal case to terror cases to corruption to rape, the two systems implicated in every instance are the police and the courts. They have to be fixed from the district level up, so that justice is available easily, quickly and cheaply to every Indian citizen. 
Fast tracking certain cases is the usual Indian response of VIP culture. It is not a systemic solution.
What we have now, because of our frightening police and courts, is a situation where people don’t even stop to help victims of road accidents, because they are so afraid of getting dragged into police and court matters. This happened with the Delhi rape victim too: she was lying on the side of the road where she and her friend had been thrown out of the bus, until the police reached. Meanwhile people drove past, but no one stopped.


Mobs everywhere


The absence of justice is sapping us of our humanity. It is leading to public fear on one hand, and mob justice on the other. Different groups with their own ideas of what is right and what is wrong are trying to dispense their own justice. Khap panchayats in Haryana have one idea, the Ram Sene in Mangalore has another, the chap who slapped Sharad Pawar may have a third, the one who slapped Prashant Bhushan may have a fourth. And so on. This is dangerous for India.
 Even the police, brutalized as it is, has become a mob. Across the country, policemen are known to routinely extort money. They ‘solve’ land disputes, and sometimes kill gangsters or alleged terrorists in ‘encounters’. In doing so they insult the most fundamental of all fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian constitution – the right to life and liberty.
 Article 21 of the Constitution states that “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”. Wrongful arrests and imprisonment, to say nothing of fake encounters, are in contravention of this. The situation is worst in those parts of India where the Armed Forces Special Powers Act is in force, because it effectively denies citizens their rights to life and liberty. Some people think there is no other solution; actually, the solution is very straightforward. The police should honestly and efficiently do what they are required, by our Constitution, to do. No more, no less.
Otherwise the police loses its moral authority. This leads to situations where citizens lose respect for the police and security forces. 
Ask any average person on the street anywhere in India what they think of the police; the first word they will come out with is probably ‘chor’, which means thief. The moral right of the police to discipline people is thus eroded. This is a dangerous situation. Those who can overpower the police will feel absolutely no hesitation in doing so. That is starting to happen. There are random incidents of attacks on the police that are being reported as brief items in daily newspapers.
 Hearing a Public Interest Litigation suit on safety of women on December 13, the Bombay High Court observed that, “Something is seriously wrong somewhere. There was a time when the presence of a single constable was enough to deter crime. Now nobody is afraid.” The bus on which the rape in Delhi occurred passed through five police barricades. The rapists carried on with what they were doing.


State failure


The state exists because it promises certain things. Security and justice are among the foremost of these. The state, corrupted through and through, is failing in its duties, and is thereby losing respect. Its monopoly on violence is being challenged. Khaps, the Ram Sena and mobs of all sorts see themselves as moral forces, which is why they are often called ‘moral police’. They represent a challenge to the real police.
In more extreme situations, the absence of justice gives space to Maoism. The legitimacy of the state itself comes into question.
It is curious that all the moral police brigades have been involved in crimes against women they see as immoral.
 Back in 2002, Professors Pippa Norris of Harvard University and Ronald Inglehart of the University of Michigan in USA published a study testing Samuel Huntington’s famous ‘clash of civilizations’ hypothesis. This is a brief extract of what they had to say:
 
“Comparative analysis of the beliefs and values of Islamic and non-Islamic publics in 75 societies around the globe, confirms the first claim in Huntington’s thesis: culture does matter, and indeed matters a lot, so that religious legacies leave a distinct imprint on contemporary values.
But Huntington is mistaken in assuming that the core clash between the West and Islamic worlds concerns democracy…Moreover the Huntington thesis fails to identify the most basic cultural fault line between the West and Islam, which concerns the issues of gender equality and sexual liberalization. The cultural gulf separating Islam from the West involves Eros far more than Demos.”
 
Inglehart and Norris had focused on Islamic countries, but as I wrote in an article in the Hindustan Times several years ago, on issues of gender equality and sexual liberalization, all conservatives in India, whether Hindu, Muslim, Sikh or Christian, actually hold very similar attitudes. The clash between all of them and the ‘West’ is also over Eros.
Why should whole communities get so worked up over who wears what, or who sleeps with whom?
 

A painful transition  


I suspect the answer may lie in modern social history. While human living has changed dramatically in the past 125 years because of sudden advances in technology, human societies haven’t adapted sufficiently, because society’s moral codes are contained in religion and tradition, which are resistant to change. 
Key inventions in this context are the condom and the pill. The biological need to avoid sex has disappeared. The social need, especially in traditional societies, has not.
 Modern Western and Communist societies have largely relegated religion and traditions to the sidelines. Those societies are therefore better adapted for modern living. In more religious societies, modern living comes into conflict with inherited mores and morals. In such places, the West, equated with modernity, is seen as immoral and sexually promiscuous.
Conservatives see the woman who does not dress conservatively as ‘loose’, and therefore asking for it.
 The standards vary from Saudi Arabia to India, but this is the broad conservative consensus: women should cover up, should not associate with men who are not their relatives, should not have relationships before or outside marriage.
 As many people have pointed out, all this does not guarantee that the woman will be safe from harassment. Women dressed in saris and churidars are raped too. In Egypt, women in burqas routinely report molestation.

Biology could provide a clue as to why. In brief, it is because we are still carrying our animal selves encoded in our genes. We invented civilization, but that is an artificial construct. The animal still survives beneath.
 Men are required by both nature and nurture to be the more aggressive in matters of love and sex. This is possibly a natural tendency, which is reinforced by a cultural code across societies, that says the man must pursue the woman and make the move. Failure to do so guarantees failure for the man in competitions for love. Who dares, wins. So the man must do the chasing. When he does it right, and reads the signs well, it’s called wooing. When he does it too aggressively, or reads the signs wrong, it’s called harassment.
Unfortunately, many young men in this country lack the social skills to woo a girl. They can do no better than gathering in groups and passing lewd comments.
 Rape is further down the same road from harassment.
Though rape statistics are dodgy, it is clear that it happens in significant numbers around the world in all kinds of societies. The US, South Africa and India are among countries that report high numbers.


Not just about police


The fact that the US is in this list means that good policing may make things better in some measure, but it won’t end the menace. The US has much better policing than India, but it has the highest rape figures in the world.
 There’s little that is common to the US, South Africa and India. The existence of groups of economically and socially marginalized men who have little respect in society is one common feature. The existence of cultures of machismo is another. A relative weakening of religions over time is a third.
 Lumpen, macho men fighting their own feelings of powerlessness and meaninglessness in life tend to behave in dangerous ways. If they find power and meaning through religion, it can be via the militant brand. Ajmal Kasab, the Mumbai terrorist, was an example.
If god doesn’t provide meaning, it’s down to the ‘good things in life’ as advertised by capitalism to make life meaningful. The same demographic then turns to crime. 
Of course there are psychopaths in all social classes, of whom rich brats like Manu Sharma are examples. The tendency common to the rich brat and the poor criminal is that both have no concern for other people and will stop at nothing to get what they want.

Everyone’s talked about the rape that night in Delhi. What struck me most was the sequence of events. The story as reported goes like this.
 A group of men, all poorly employed, have an evening off. One of them is a bus driver, and they decide to go for a joyride. They drink some alcohol. Then they start to have fun. And what is it they do for fun? They pick a fight with a trucker who overtook their bus. They pick up a poor man, beat him up, and rob him. Then they pick up the couple, start a fight with them, beat up the guy and then rape the girl. They don’t stop at rape and sodomy. They also pushed iron rods into her body, injuring her critically.
 This is what they did for fun?
 Castrate them; they don’t have human rights because they cannot be considered fully human. What they did was pure evil. That cannot be tolerated.

Strengthen the police and fix the court system. Those are things that absolutely need to be done. 
Don’t leave it at that. The roots of this problem go deeper. They go into cultures, politics and economic systems that give rise to criminals and psychopaths.

Sunday, March 24, 2013

The Sanjay Dutt case

Looking at the debate over whether Sanjay Dutt should be pardoned or not, it becomes clear that the argument is taking place entirely because of who he is, not what he did. Had he not been the famous man he is, there would have been far, far fewer people speaking for him - or against. His case is being treated a certain way because he is famous.
So, let's accept that. And what result is it having? Well, on one hand you're hearing that he should be pardoned because he has been reformed. On the other, you're hearing that he should face the punishment meted out by the Supreme Court, because there should be no special treatment for the rich or famous.
I agree that there should be no special treatment for anyone regardless of fame. By that yardstick, he should not also be targeted because he is famous.
Let's for a moment forget his name, and see his story.

Dutt's story


A young man, growing up, encounters money, fame, and the loss of his mother to cancer. His father is a busy man. He himself is a troubled youth and takes to drugs. He becomes a drug addict and is sent for rehabilitation. He manages to clean himself up, and get married. He is turning his life around when his wife dies of a brain tumor. He is again shattered.
He tries to pick himself up and get back to work, but his money and fame bring him into bad company. Around this time, a mosque is demolished in a town in Uttar Pradesh, and riots start in Mumbai too. The initial fury of the Muslim community sees youth from that community in the role of aggressors. Then the reaction to the reaction starts, and with Balasaheb Thackeray and the Shiv Sena calling the political shots in Mumbai, it becomes a bloodbath.
Before these riots, Mumbai's famous underworld was largely secular. The big don of the day, Dawood Ibrahim, worked with his two lieutenants Chhota Rajan and Chhota Shakeel. He lived in Dubai, hobnobbed with visiting starlets and stars, and made the odd appearance at a cricket match in Sharjah.
The riots changed that. Legend has it that a box of bangles was sent to him at his Dubai house as an insult, because he had failed to protect his people during the riots, or avenge them after.
The revenge came in the form of the horrific 1993 bomb blasts. That was the start of Islamist terrorism in mainland India.
Sanjay Dutt is said to have met several of Mumbai's 'bhais' in Dubai during the shooting of a film. He is accused of allowing his house to be used for unloading weapons including the AK series rifle that eventually got him into trouble.
Eventually the only charge against him that was proved was under the Arms Act, for keeping that one rifle in his possession.

Equal justice?


Well, would anyone in this country have any idea of the number of 'kattas' and unlicensed weapons? Every villager in parts of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh has one. They should all be in jail. The law does nothing about them, because they are not famous.
Does anyone in this country have any idea of the number of assault rifles circulating around this country? Nope. Every insurgent group in the Northeast and Kashmir has them, the Maoists have them. When one of those guys surrenders, the Indian government gives them a shawl around the neck, a cash stipend, free board and lodging, and withdraws all cases except the most serious ones like murder and rape. They are not charged under the Arms Act.
So, let's say our man was a bad guy, a khalnayak. He clearly stopped being one long ago. He went to jail, spent a year and a half there, and was released after none other than Bal Thackeray wrote a letter to the Supreme Court on his behalf. After his release from jail, Sanjay went straight to Thackeray's house and took his blessings.
He started his career again, got married, had children, and was leading a completely normal life within the law until this judgment.
If the aim of justice was reformation, it had already been achieved. So, why should the man be sent to jail once more? He is already reformed.
Just because the Supreme Court has said it doesn't mean the calls for mercy are wrong. After all, the system of reviews and pardons is there for a reason, and it is a former judge of the Supreme Court who is speaking of them.
Every case should be treated on merit. To react to everything the same way is the logic of 'andher nagri, chaupat raja, takey ser bhaji, takey ser bhaja'. If a case under the Arms Act has a man who was misled in his youth and is now reformed, it cannot be treated like every other case under Arms Act. The particular circumstances and qualities of the individual and his life must be taken into account - without regard to his fame or wealth.
Don't punish him just because he's famous.











Thursday, January 15, 2009

After Mumbai

As suspected, it has turned out to be LeT terrorists with backing from the ISI and al Qaeda who carried out the Mumbai Nov 26 attacks. As expected, Pakistan's military has prevented all attempts at cooperation in bringing to justice the perpetrators of these attacks.
The arrests of these terrorists and their detention in Pakistan can be expected to yield no benefits for India. This is just a sham, and meaningless. Criminals run operations from their jail cells even here, without state patronage. Surely they can do so from jail there, with a little help from their friends.
The US and UK will not help India any more than they are. Like true romantics, they are unable to give up hoping against hope that the Pakistan ISI will somehow have a change of heart, someday, and really start fighting against terrorists instead of training and arming them.
India must therefore learn once again to help itself.
A first step in this regard would be the launch of a trade contest versus Pakistan. The products they mainly export - garments, textiles, yarn, petroleum products - are items India also does business in. The areas they export to are also our markets.
We must therefore suspend trade with Pakistan immediately and attempt to replace their goods with ours everywhere.
Pakistan government officials have already admitted that the attackers were Pakistani and said they had camps inside Pakistan. International economic sanctions against the key individuals and organisations named for involvement in the attack must be pushed through.
If UN sanctions could be imposed against Col Gadaffi's Libya (over handing over of two terror suspects), why can't they be imposed against at least the individuals and organisations in Pakistan who are known supporters of terror?
All this eventually is also in the world's, and Pakistan's, interest. A Talibanised Pakistan wouldn't be very good to Sherry Rehman, for example - or to anyone who prefers the 21st Century to the 16th.

Sunday, November 30, 2008

Why they attacked Mumbai...

The attack on Mumbai is having its political fallout at this moment. It will continue till at least the general elections around March 2009. Perhaps I should worry about that, but frankly, both the BJP and the Congress have proved to be bunches of dickheads when it comes to matters of national security. There's little to choose between the two. The only difference is in the noises they make.
So my concern is more about who launched this attack and why. Several observers are saying it was Lashkar-e-Toiba with al Qaeda strategising. A few are saying ISI and Pak army - their SSG commandos. On Thursday and Friday, I was telling folks in office it's the former, but today, in light of more information, I'm more inclined to think it's the latter or an amalgamation of both. This was most likely strategised by elements in the Pakistan establishment. Training was excellent, Pak army. Execution - we'll know soon, for sure.
My initial hunch was this was done to ease pressure from the al Qaeda on the Pak-Afghan border, besides hurting India, and other countries hated by Pak extremists, like USA, UK, Israel. However there are other strategic factors that also may have played into this.
The Pakistan military is worried about the possible balkanisation of the country, and those fears have grown since the appearance of maps put out by US agencies showing exactly this. The US's recent National Intelligence Committee report questioning whether Pakistan would hold together until 2025, and talking of the erasure of the Durand Line, can't have done much to ease the worries of those chaps. In early November, maps also appeared on billboards in NWFP that showed a free Pashtunistan. Wonder who put those up - the moderate, nationalist Pashtuns or friends of the Taliban?
The Taliban is looking for a homeland, but in whose interest is it to give it to them? Is Mumbai the first point on a trajectory that will lead to a war which will see either the creation of a new country between Afghanistan and Pakistan or the fall of Kabul?
I have no access to information to be able to analyse this properly, and no time after my day job to give it a proper go. However, those who do may perhaps ponder deeper into the matter. And do let me know what your thoughts on this are.